Gotta watch out for that zombie creating side effect.
Posted on 04/13/2009 9:14:12 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Viral Batteries: A Case for Evolution?
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*
Researchers at MIT have invented a “greener” battery with the help of viruses. Three years ago, they engineered a virus that coats itself with material that serves as an anode, a structure within a battery that attracts positive ions. They have now engineered a virus (bacteriophage) that serves as a cathode, which indirectly links to the anode to help make the battery functional. The result is a battery with little impact on the environment.
National Public Radio (NPR) ran a report on its Morning Edition that compared the development of this battery with the processes of evolution, stating that if the lead researcher “didn't like any properties of the electrode, she just tweaked the DNA of the virus that was making it.”1 But does this research actually portray an evolutionary process?...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Ping!
Frankenscience at a microscopic scale, similar to what Obama plans to do with his foot soldiers
Looks like an instance of design.
I beat ALF (Animal Liberation Front) will bomb thier labs.
Don’t viruses have feelings to?
(no)
Talk about seeing what you want to see ...
There’s some serious delusion going on, if anyone can look at an engineered virus and see evidence of evolution, as opposed to intelligent design. Maybe, in the spirit of punctuated equilibrium, we’ll be treated to treatises upon assisted evolution? Quite the interesting history in just this past century, as far as human attempts at such assistance. Not sure they want to go there.
Gotta watch out for that zombie creating side effect.
>Gotta watch out for that zombie creating side effect.
Indeed, it’s news like this that has people stocking up on guns and ammo. ;)
I think the article is talking to the “evolution” of the dry cell battery, not relating it to “evolution” of mankind. Scientists have been using viruses and bacteria to rid the soil and/or ground water of hydrocarbon spills for quite some time now. They’ve just taken the technology to a new level with engineering the viral srains to accept a chemical current.
Well, according to these researchers, they have preferences, thoughts and intent, so why the heck not?
"... viruses that first coat themselves with iron phosphate, then grab hold of carbon nanotubes to create a network of highly conductive material.” This technology works only “because the viruses recognize and bind specifically to certain materials.”
Feeeeeliiinnngs, whoa whoa whooaa feeeliinnnggs.
Quite the freighted term, “evolution,” especially when used by National Public Radio. I somehow doubt NPR used the word in any other context.
It's been a bad century and a half for them.
Once again, in case you are interested in actually reading (and in case you are under the delusion that postings of ICR articles on FR are actually representative of the science):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/gquery?term=evolution
Employing human intelligence to manipulate the genes of plants and animals is a common practice, and has not a thing to do with genetic alterations resulting by pure chance in an undirected, random fashion.
SKYNET!
Morgellonborg, you will be assimilated.
Ok, they definitely went overboard there.
Please take the Honest Evolutionist Test:
Thirty years ago, did you honestly think that evolutionists would still be looking, today, for all those missing links?
Sure. But your question is rather ridiculous. Did you honestly believe in 1979 that all scientific discoveries would have been made by 2009?
You failed.
You are taken at face value an ICR article that's trying to decieve you.
For where the evolution part is relevant
Belcher (and Chiang) uses a method sometimes called "directed evolution," which allows her to quickly modify viruses to work with a range of materials.
In this case, directed evolution begins with a small vial that Chiang pulls from a refrigerator. Inside is a clear fluid that contains a billion viruses; they are nearly identical, but each has a subtle genetic variation introduced by the researchers. The variations are, in part, fortuitous: the researchers add a randomly generated sequence of DNA to each virus. But the added DNA, which codes for a short strand of amino acids called a peptide, is inserted into the gene for a select protein.
Since there are so many variations among the viruses in the vial, some of them should randomly have peptides that bind to a useful inorganic material. The researchers simply pour the contents of the vial onto a target material, such as a small square of gold, and give the viruses a chance to bind. Then they wash the material. After a few repetitions, only the viruses that happen to bind strongly remain. The process allows the researchers to quickly engineer viruses to bind to a particular material, even if they don't know ahead of time what sequence of amino acids is likely to work.
Funny how the ICR deciced to comment on a science article by a reporter who probably flunked JR high school biology instead of using more detailed technical reports.
Had I known, I never would've given you the test.
Your “test” is a neon-lit billboard advertising your own ignorance.
Look who’s talkin’, y’all.
a little bit...
I took a sourced comment from NPR at face value. Who's trying to deceive whom?
Smokey Mountains = Appalachia
Had I known, I never would’ve given you the test.
______
I thought that we libtard evolutionists were the elitists. Guess I was wrong.
Wonder if there are more creationists, id’ers or believers in evolution in Appalachia. Since you believe that folks in Appalachia are stupid, you would expect them to ‘evolutionists’, wouldn’t you?
I’d guess the opposite is true.
That's a start! Let the hgealing begin!
That's a start! Let the hgealing begin!
opps! Typo:
“hgealing”
I meant ghealign.
do you have andre the giant fingers? no one can have that many spelling errors and then correct a spelling error with a spelling error.
Thanks for the ping!
“Feeeeeliiinnngs, whoa whoa whooaa feeeliinnnggs”
You just had to go there, didn’t you?
I just love it when you can't see the work the Designer had in evolution, preferring to close your eyes to the miracles of life.
I look at nature every day and marvel at the miraculous work of the Designer. What are you talking about?
Apparently you either did not read my post, you are deliberately distorting my post or you agree that the Designer used evolution to bring the views you observe every day.
I see you are a visitor to the same three or four creationist websites that spew these false descriptions of evolution.
This is a Yes or No question.
I guess you are not understanding me. I posted about the miracles of evolutionary life. Do you are do you not believe that the Designer used evolution to create the present life forms.
This is a Yes or No question.
Well, actually.... you demand a Yes or No answer, which is not the same thing as there actually being a Yes or No answer.
Did you not read #41. I was merely throwing it back in his face.
Both of them are based on the same false premise, however -- so even if I only quoted one, I directed the comment to both of you.
Maybe I killed two birds with one stone.
No. Mine was not based on a false premise. The premise of my post was to show the false premise of his post by repeating it back to him. duh.
So you didn’t actually mean your question? Sometimes it’s hard to tell.
It's a long story going back to early in the thread. Sometimes if you are not involved you miss the back and forth. My post was meant for only one person and it would take too long to explain right now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.